http://www.thefa.com/News/governance/2013/oct/fernando-torres-chelsea-tottenham.aspx Faces no further action. FA showing sense and objectivity for once? please log in to view this image
Personally I think they got it wrong but won't complain. I hope nobody wearing our shirt conducts themselves like that again.
He should be banned really but not going to complain. please log in to view this image please log in to view this image
FA bottle the decision once again using the lie that nothing can be done (no restrospective action is just their own guideline in the first place)
So basically their new rule change does nothing except provide a continuance of the ruling that allowed dangerous play and violent conduct to go unpunished, as it always has done. It just puts more pressure on the referees to try and act at the time when they haven't seen the whole incident, if anything. Ah well, can't say I care that much whether Torres was banned for one game or four but I was curious to see the new rule in action. Turns out it's going to be very thinly applied to the extent where it hardly matters.
Nah, I just meant bad tackles. The FA take a very hard line on what they see as dangerous challenges, handing out 3 match bans for them and banning certain types of challenges outright. It's completely incongruous that they take something so seriously then allow players to go unpunished because of a silly loophole that doesn't have any bearing on whether the player has done something wrong - the "loophole" being that if the ref or his officials see part of the incident(from a reasonable distance) then they can't be punished. This is the one that infuriates me more, violent conduct is usually for a kick, or a stamp, or a scratch() which is rarely anything more than superficial damage but bad challenges can end careers and regularly leads to injuries. If the FA can rescind a ban they should be able to add one too.
Fairy muff, totally agree. The whole system needs sorting out and clarifying, from top to bottom more or less. Things like diving, handballs etc aren't really clear between refs/players/fans at the moment either.
Exactly. A system that allows Aguero to get away with that stamp (on Luiz) for instance, needs a complete overhaul. If the lino saw the Torres thing, are we saying it's OK to scratch opponents now? Didn't think the Torres incident was that big a deal but certainly leaves the door open for more career threatening challenges to go unpunished as long as someone saw at least some of the incident.
You're still a dick, but I agree with you here. Its their own rule, they could easily bypass it if they wanted, its not like there is another governing body enforcing their gay rule.
Spot on. please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image All of these unpunished. Rules need to be reformed
You'd have thought lessons would have been learnt from last season. If the lino saw it and basically thought it was just a load of handbags, then fair enough. You suspect however that the lino didn't see the full extent of the coming together. Least Vertonghen didn't get hit with a football though, cos then he could have been killed (aye Fergie ).
I think this is the key bit: "One of the match officials saw the coming together of the two players, albeit not in its entirety." There's no way he could've seen Torres dig his nails in so even if he has a suspicion from Jan's reaction, he can't do anything about it at the time and apparently the FA can't/won't do anything about it after either. Basically it's a cop out. It's a matter of time until a far more serious incident is unpunished by this daft rule and I hope the FA are held to account for their stupid rule then.
The rule is stupid if a partial sight of the incident is sufficient for it not to be applied. Why can't it say they will over-turn clear mistakes, either way? But it would be legally wrong for the FA to ignore one of their own rules, however stupid it is so I agree with their decision.
They ignored their own rules by banning Terry when the rules say they will abide by the courts decisions. Good you think they were wrong.
